So how about us renaming the Supreme Court of the United States to call it THE 5-4 COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?? Virtually every ruling that comes out of this politically motivated court is 5-4. Even the ruling on whether the current Prop 8 trial could be televised or not was 5-4. Think about that. The question as to whether to televise that trial cannot be a conservative or liberal question. This is a judicial question, based on protections for ALL Americans and relies on a uniform justice and fairness for all. Still, the ruling was 5-4, which means only one thing, that even on issues which are NOT inherently conservative or liberal, we’ll still get a 5-4 ruling if the issue concerns certain (LGBT, etc) American’s rights.
For some time now, the Supreme Court, which is supposed to uniformly issue their rulings based on the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, are not doing so. 5 of them consistently rule politically, not constitutionally. This doesn’t bode well for any of us should the current Prop 8 case see the doors of the Supreme Court. Clearly, the constitution is not the basis for the legal system anymore, political affiliation is.
As was evidenced once again as the Supreme Court ruled today 5-4 to abandon the restrictions on corporate contributions in the political arena.
From Huffington Post…
By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday rolled back restrictions on corporate spending on federal campaigns. The decision could unleash a torrent of corporate-funded attack ads in upcoming elections.
"Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy — it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people — political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism and attacked the use of corporate personhood in the case: "The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case."
